JB

Just got back from 10 Cloverfield Lane. Hmm. Really not sure what to make of it... It was very tense and I enjoyed parts of it. Goodman was excellent. Overall, though, I was pretty disappointed. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is strangely attractive, though.

So could that theoretically be used as a defence by someone accused of rape? If so, I'm surprised that there hasn't been a highly publicised case of it happening (that I'm aware of).

I noticed that. He always seems to do it, though. He quite often picks England to lose as well. In fact I can't remember the last time he said that they would beat Wales. Perhaps he's afraid of being accused of bias.

It's been an all dayer but I've started to level off now . I do find him thoroughly engaging and eloquent, though.

Brian Moore gets a lot of stick because he is so vociferous. But ultimately, he calls things as they are. I can't ever recall him showing any bias. He is just as likely to slate England as he is to praise them, and vice-versa with the opposition. It helps that he's also so eloquent. The voice of the Six Nations IMO.

Oh and it's a small and pretty pointless moan but Eddie Butler really can **** off now. His pretentious pre-game monologues where he talks absolute shit are becoming unintentionally hilarious now and the guy can barely contain his contempt for England. A bit of impartiality please, BBC.

Agree about Mike Brown. He does all the right things when it comes to beating a man (or two) but can rarely pick a pass... Genuine comment on the match report on the Guardian: "Let it be known this is probably the least well-deserved grand slam in 5/6 Nations history. Wales DID NOT lose to "England", they lost to the clock. In fact, since it was clearly the clock and not "England" that did for Wales last week it could be argued this is not a grand slam at all, so "England" should be stripped of the trophy and probably their 6 Nations title too" Who knew that games of rugby were limited to 80 minutes eh? Hopefully that's actually textbook trolling from somebody who's spent more than 5 minutes in Wales! Their bitterness is almost as enjoyable as the victory itself!

Get in!!! Off to laugh in the face of Valleys-dwelling tricolor-sporting words removed!

Aimed at me I assume? I don't mean to bite again but I don't want my opinions to be misunderstood/misrepresented. The routine mightysasquatch posted was completely different to what you were doing for your chest. In fact, in many ways, it's the antithesis of what you were doing. As he pointed out, the volume isn't even high. And if you look back through this thread I've written loads of times about the importance of upper back training and how you can't really do too much.

Cool, cheers. Yeah the overreaction by the police was ridiculous. They've still managed to ruin the sevens this year, though...

Holy shit! That's insane. I always wonder who has enough spare money lying around that they can spend that sort of cash on an 80-minute sports game... Out of interest, as a local, do you know if they're doing that stupid thing where they close all the local pubs at about 8 on a match day? Thing we may have talked about this before...

I'd be happy to take them off your hands!

Tuilagi back in the match day squad, replacing Goode, meaning that Daly stays! Yes yes yes!

I didn't find it as hard as I thought I would but it was very, very boring and some of my joints felt shit. Oh and just to clarify, I was referring to reps per body part - so it would be 130 reps each for chest and back respectively. Which is quite a bit lower than 200+ for chest alone in single session. I'll shut up and move on now .

Haha I just watched the start of the video you posted. Admittedly I didn't watch all of it but I think I could see where it was going. Following the advice of two professional, enhanced powerlifters/bodybuilders is not a very good idea. These guys are at the top of their field and what they do isn't the right thing for the average Joe.

You're wrong there. That just isn't a traditional GVT workout. One exercise per body part for 10 sets, followed by another for 3 sets. Not that I'm defending GVT - it was a 6 week program that I've done once and am unlikely to do again. It's pointless argument, anyway. As I said before, based on your posts in this thread, we have polar opposite opinions on training and I disagree with 90% of the stuff you say. And I can tell that I'm unlikely to change your mind .

Are you having a laugh?! You've done 110 reps on your last three exercises alone! In fact I just counted up 185 total reps, without including the flyes that you haven't listed the rep ranges for.

Can't argue with any of that, really. Although I maintain that you could train a lot more efficiently, get better results (stronger, more muscular) and decrease the likelihood of injuries.

Nope. It isn't. Nowhere near. You've done 23 sets for one (relatively small) body part in that workout you posted. Excessive for natural lifters for several reasons. GVT is 13 sets, maximum, using two exercises (I've only done that program once, just to test it out, and that was over a year ago. I wouldn't do it again). I don't like the term 'fully working the muscle' but taking it to mean what I think you mean, there's a big difference between that and over-working a muscle. As for 'people don't train hard enough', then I think that's a pretty big leap on your behalf. Just because they don't do the amount of sets you do, doesn't mean they aren't training at an equal or greater intensity or, quite frankly, smarter/more effectively. Volume does not equal intensity. You say you're not interested in training for the pump but that's the whole point of such high-volume training... If you've always trained like that then I'd suggest taking a step back. You'd see better results. I don't mean to be harsh but based on that routine, I would be pretty surprised if you are in decent shape and natural. Unless you have exceptional genetics I won't bother trying to convince you as I think we have polar opposite attitudes and approaches to training!

Woah that's a shit-ton of volume. Probably unnecessary and counterproductive IMO. Unless you're, ahem, 'enhanced'...

If your aim is to lift as much as you can then there's no real reason to do any of the big 3 at any time other than the start of your workout IMO (after warming-up etc.). It's when your glycogen stores are at their highest and you're likely to be at your strongest. A lot of bodybuilders like to 'activate' the muscle with isolation work or lighter compounds before hitting the big boys but then strength isn't their main goal. If your only goal is aesthetic then there's an argument for saying that you don't necessarily need to dead lift or bench, anyway.

I can't help thinking that this whole situation could only happen at Villa... Another one to add to the list.

The approach is summed up perfectly in a book called 'The Lean Muscle Diet' by Lou Schuler and Alan Aragon. It's specifically targeted to the lay-person but totally evidence-based. It's very easy to read and apply.

This is an excellent visual representation of the importance of dietary factors by a researcher called Eric Helms. Very, very smart guy. Obviously the most important at the bottom, to least important at the top.

There's absolutely no need to not still enjoy your food when in a calorie deficit. Adherence is the key to success so flexible dieting is the way forward IMO. It's not quite as extreme as 'If it fits your macros' but similar in principle. Hit your protein and fibre goals and generally choose minimally-processed, whole foods then have at it with the remaining calories. I include all sorts of stuff in my day-to-day diet these days which would've been out of the question a few years ago. 10-20% of your daily/weekly calories can come from whatever you want with no negative impacts on your health or weight (as long as you stick to your calorie goals, obviously). I cringe when I look back at the way I used to eat. Bordeline disordered with all the shit like brown rice and dry chicken breast. Disgusting. I have most of my favourite foods quite regularly now. Just not always in the portions I would like... Although I do manage to fit in a pizza and a full tub of ice-cream most weekends . Oh and despite all the hysteria in the media, sugar is not toxic or inherently bad for you. The only problems with it is that it has no nutritional value, so provides no benefit (apart from tasting good!) and is very easy to over-consume.